Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Definition
HISTORY
Though it traces its roots back to Max Weber and earlier, organizational
studies is generally considered to have begun as an academic discipline with the
advent of scientific management in the 1890s, with Taylorism representing the peak
of this movement. Proponents of scientific management held that rationalizing the
organization with precise sets of instructions and time-motion studies would lead to
increased productivity. Studies of different compensation systems were carried out.
Weber's and Fayol's theories found broad application in the early and mid-
1900s, in part because of the influence of Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915). In a
1911 book entitled Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor outlined his theories
and eventually implemented them on American factory floors. He is credited with
helping to define the role of training, wage incentives, employee selection, and work
standards in organizational performance.
After the First World War, the focus of organizational studies shifted to
analysis of how human factors and psychology affected organizations, a
transformation propelled by the identification of the Hawthorne Effect. This Human
Relations Movement focused on teams, motivation, and the actualization of the
goals of individuals within organizations.
The Second World War further shifted the field, as the invention of large-scale
logistics and operations research led to a renewed interest in rationalist approaches
to the study of organizations. Interest grew in theory and methods native to the
sciences, including systems theory, the study of organizations with a complexity
theory perspective and complexity strategy. Influential work was done by Herbert
Alexander Simon and James G. March and the so-called "Carnegie School" of
organizational behavior.
In the 1960s and 1970s, the field was strongly influenced by social
psychology and the emphasis in academic study was on quantitative research. An
explosion of theorizing, much of it at Stanford University and Carnegie Mellon,
produced Bounded Rationality, Informal Organization, Contingency
Theory, Resource Dependence, Institutional Theory, and Organizational
Ecology theories, among many others.
Hence, Scientific Management has had a decisive and long impact on the
industrial practice and on the theoretical ideas of organizations in general. Later on,
the theory was criticized by both employees and managers as scientific time studies
disregarded their own common sense and judgment. As a result of this resistance
and the spread of other views of humanity, Scientific Management is no longer
prevalent as a managerial ideology. However, it still functions as a guideline for
technical procedures, not only in the industrial sector, but also in the service sector.
Bureaucracy Model Theory
Max Weber is described as the father of sociology, and he has made great
efforts to elucidate conditions in Western civilization. He developed an
understanding of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is fundamental as it represents a basic
pattern which exists in many variants.
Weber is different from Taylor and Fayol in that he has a broader approach to
organizations as he includes the social and historical perspective. He believes that
the understanding of organizations and their structure can be found in the historical
context, and he develops a normative ideal for bureaucracy, which is reflected in his
view of e.g. the public employee.
Administrative Theory
Around the same time as Taylor, Henri Fayol developed another approach
within the rational perspective, which inverts the focus of Scientific Management.
Now, administrative processes rather than technical processes were rationalized.
The administrative principles in the form of the management’s hierarchical pyramid
structure were to function as the basis of the part of the organization that involved
activities, i.e. a top down approach.
Fayol and others were pioneers in the creation of administrative theory, and
therefore, they were later subjected to severe criticism for over-simplifying
administrative conditions.
The idea of the hierarchy is to show that needs on a given level must be
satisfied before the needs on the next level become interesting. Or expressed in
another way, the ‘lowest’ unsatisfied need will be the most dominant for human
behavior.
At a first glance, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs seems appealing, but it is
important to note that the model is only to a lesser degree supported by empirical
research. However, there seems to be consensus that needs are arranged
hierarchically.
McGregor's X-Y theory is a salutary and simple reminder of the natural rules
for managing people, which under the pressure of day-to-day business are all too
easily forgotten.
• The average person dislikes work and will avoid it he/she can.
• Therefore most people must be forced with the threat of punishment to work
towards organisational objectives.
• The average person prefers to be directed; to avoid responsibility; is relatively
unambitious, and wants security above all else.
Theory Y ('participative management' style)
The term "open systems" reflected the newfound belief that all organizations
are unique—in part because of the unique environment in which they operate—and
that they should be structured to accommodate unique problems and opportunities.
For example, research during the 1960s indicated that traditional bureaucratic
organizations generally failed to succeed in environments where technologies or
markets were rapidly changing. They also failed to realize the importance of
regional cultural influences in motivating workers.
• Cultural values, which shape views about ethics and determine the relative
importance of various issues.
• Economic conditions, which include economic upswings, recessions, regional
unemployment, and many other regional factors that affect a company's
ability to grow and prosper. Economic influences may also partially dictate an
organization's role in the economy.
• Legal/political environment, which effectively helps to allocate power within a
society and to enforce laws. The legal and political systems in which an open
system operates can play a key role in determining the long-term stability
and security of the organization's future. These systems are responsible for
creating a fertile environment for the business community, but they are also
responsible for ensuring—via regulations pertaining to operation and taxation
—that the needs of the larger community are addressed.
• Quality of education, which is an important factor in high technology and
other industries that require an educated work force. Businesses will be
better able to fill such positions if they operate in geographic regions that
feature a strong education system.
The open-systems theory also assumes that all large organizations are
comprised of multiple subsystems, each of which receives inputs from other
subsystems and turns them into outputs for use by other subsystems. The
subsystems are not necessarily represented by departments in an organization, but
might instead resemble patterns of activity.
Contingency Theory
Contingency theories are a class of behavioral theory that contend that there
is no one best way of organizing / leading and that an organizational / leadership
style that is effective in some situations may not be successful in others. In other
words: The optimal organization / leadership style is contingent upon various
internal and external constraints.
These constraints may include: the size of the organization, how it adapts to
its environment, differences among resources and operations activities, managerial
assumptions about employees, strategies, technologies used, etc.
Organizational ecology has over the years become one of the central fields
in organizational studies, and is known for its empirical, quantitative character.
Ecological studies usually have a large-scale, longitudinal focus (datasets often span
several decades, sometimes even centuries).
Niche theory
The theory fragment on niche width distinguishes broadly between two types
of organizations: generalists and specialists. Specialist organizations maximize their
exploitation of the environment and accept the risk of experiencing a change in that
environment. On the other hand, generalist organizations accept a lower level of
exploitation in return for greater security .
Niche theory shows that specialisation is generally favoured in stable or
certain environments. However, the main contribution of the niche theory is
probably the finding that “generalism is not always optimal in uncertain
environments” The exception is produced by environments which “place very
different demands on the organization, and the duration of environmental states is
short relative to the life of the organization” .
Thus, the niche theory explains variations in industrial structure in different
industries. The theory shows how different structures in different industries
(generalist vs specialist organizations) are shaped by relevant environments.
Resource partitioning
The relationship between generalists and specialist organizations is further
developed in the resource-partitioning model which includes predictions about the
founding and mortality rates of both specialists and generalists as a function
of market concentration.
The theory can be illustrated by describing two environments. Environment A
stands for an unconcentrated mass market and environment B represents a
concentrated mass market. In environment B, generalists will always attempt to
address the center of the market where most resources peak. After all, in the center
of the market these generalists can thrive by exploiting economies of scale. claims
however that “in environment B, despite the very concentrated generalists market,
the resource space outside this market [i.e. in the periphery of the market] is larger
than in environment A, where the generalist market is less concentrated” .The
abundance of resource in the periphery can then become hospitable to specialist
organizations, and the market becomes effectively partitioned. Carroll concluded
that “more available resources should translate into better chances of success for
specialists when they operate in the more concentrated market”.
Density dependence
Organizational ecology also predicts that the rates of founding and the rates
of mortality are dependent on the number of organizations (density) in the market.
The two central mechanisms here are legitimation (the recognition or taken-for-
grantedness of that group of organizations) and competition. Legitimation generally
increases (at a decreasing rate) with the number of organizations, but so does
competition (at an increasing rate). The result is that legitimation processes will
prevail at low numbers of organizations, while competition at high numbers.
The founding rate will therefore first increase with the number of
organizations (due to an increase in legitimation) but will decrease at high numbers
of organizations (due to competition). The reverse holds for mortality rates. Thus,
the relationship of density to founding rates has an inverted U shape and the
relationship of density to mortality rates follows a U-shaped pattern.
Age dependence
How an organization's risk of mortality relates to the age of that organization has
also been extensively examined. Here, organizational ecologists have found a
number of patterns:
Liability of newness. Here, the risk of failure is high initially but declines as
the organization ages.
Liability of adolescence. The risk of mortality will be low at first as the
organization is buffered from failure due to support by external constituents and
initial endowments. But when these initial resources become depleted, the
mortality hazard shoots up and then declines following the liability of newness
pattern.
Liability of aging. Here, the risk of failure increases with organizational age.
This could be due to a liability of senescence (internal inefficiences arising from
the aging of the organization) or a liability of obsolescence (a growing external
mismatch with the environment).
Benefits
There are many benefits to improving learning capacity and knowledge sharing
within an organization. The main benefits are;